Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 2041627" data-attributes="member: 3608">Personally, I think this thread is still answering the original question. This kind of discussion is so much more useful than reading one positive review & one negative review & being left wondering how they could both be describing the same thing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I think one of the underlying principals of C&C is that it is easier for the CK to give than to take away. (Although, it was only one principal & not slavishly adheared to.) Including feats in the PHB, even if they are marked optional, pretty much guarantees that most support material is going to assume everyone is using them & that many CK's would use them more because they felt players expected them than because the CK wanted to use them.I think there are three preferences in role playing games:1. Some people look to the rules to decide what their character can be & do. They want lots of options along lots of axes & they want real benefits & penalties from their choices among those options. GURPS is a good example of this kind of game.2. Some people don't want lots of explicit lists of options because they feel this tends to limit things too much. They want the players to use creativity in coming up with options for their characters rather than looking through lists. They want to leverage the creativity, intelligence, & experience of the players & the GM in coming up with ways of handling these things ad hoc. They don't mind mistakes being made & adjustments being required. Fudge is probably a good example of this kind of game. (Although, I think I got that message more from SOS's other writings about Fudge than from Fudge itself.)3. Some people think that a good game necessarily restricts the number of options open to the player. Plus, they see a wide range of things as not requiring mechanics at all. You don't need game mechanics to give your character the background of a fisherman. As long as you don't also claim to have grown up in a desert, the GM just allows it. (Although, an entertaining rationalization can convince the GM to allow the desert fisherman.) You don't need game mechanics to handle fishing. You just spend the appropriate amount of game time & the GM decides your yield based on your character's background, the availablity of appropriate equipment, the density of fish in the water, & common sense.When it comes to the brute-force-warrior v. agile-warrior:Preference 1 expects the game to offer options along these lines with mechanical differences & appropriate trade-offs.Preference 3 says, we're happy to model things at a higher level where the differences are a wash. The difference is solely in the description of their style & the description of their gear.Preference 2 could go either way. It would just reqire some ad hoc rulings if leaning towards preference 1.The C&C PHB includes aspects of all three preferences, but people of preferences 2 & 3 are going to be happier with it than people of preference 1. Although, there is definately the ability to expand the game to make it more preference-1-friendly.Or maybe I'm completely off my rocker. That's just some thoughts I had while reading this thread.</blockquote>

Verification